.950 version changed

The link to the original .950 version provided to me on this forum https://forum.evolvelab.io/t/in-support-of-veras-version-950/3563/7 has worked for quite a while but I noticed last week my results when I try it on an exterior example has changed to that of the newer versions, and is not the original look, which seems to indicate it’s been changed. Was it changed?


I have often wondered why the look for exteriors changed so much as accuracy was improved, but maybe it had to; I think the original was pretty beautiful.

Per the link you posted above, the back-end did change. The back-end gets updated remotely without needing a front-end update - therefore it’s the back-end + the front-end pairing that produces results.

Apparently the .950 version is no longer available anywhere. It was a beautiful program. I don’t think I was so off base preferring .950 version over the 1.0+ versions, right up until the latest 1.4 engine 5 program, which is fantastic (for interiors at least). I don’t really need the .950 version anymore with the advent of that newest release, but I still have some curiosity about it and interest in possibly comparing looks from time to time, and it did have a remarkable look that I like to remember.

But I don’t want it to be updated remotely. The wording…“without needing” an update is unusual. I don’t know for whose benefit the words “without needing” are used. “Without needing an update” benefits who, technical people who don’t need to update it? That has nothing to do with what I’m saying about the integrity of the program. The program is changed. The look of the program is completely changed. It is not an intact version of .950. This seems obvious to me.

Is this reply visible on the forum?
I would still appreciate a response as to why the version was changed (was it an oversight?) and whether you are going to reinstate it. I am imagining a reply like “sorry, it was an oversight, we will reinstate it.” I would like to use this program from time to time. Thanks.

We will look into this and respond here with our findings.